CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 20 April 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 73692/12 Branko GLAVAK against Croatia lodged on 22 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Branko Glavak, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Donji Kraljevec. He is represented before the Court by Mr Saša Kačer, a lawyer practising in Čakovec. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 September 2000 S.B. concluded a contract on maintenance until death ( ugovor o dosmrtnom uzdržavanju ) with his wife T.B. Under that contract S.B. undertook to make an inter vivos transfer of his real-estates to T.B. as the provider of support. On 30 September 2000 S.B. died. On 15 October 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against T.B. before the Čakovec Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Čakovcu ) claiming that he was an illegitimate son of S.B. In his civil action the applicant sought: (a) that the contract on maintenance until death be declared null and void; (b) cancellation of all entries in the name of T.B. based upon the impugned contract that infringed his property rights and the establishment of the former land registry status; and (c) declaration that the property at issue was included in his deceased father’s estate. At the first hearing of the trial, the applicant indicated the value of the claim at 101,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) On 4 February 2005 the Čakovec Municipal Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible. The applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance decision. On 12 May 2005 the Čakovec County Court ( Županijski sud u Čakovcu ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with the Supreme Court. On 19 April 2006 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law admissible and examined its merits after which it quashed the decisions of the lower courts and ordered a fresh consideration of the case. On 17 February 2009, in the fresh proceedings, the first-instance court adopted a judgment in the applicant’s favour. The defendant, T.B., lodged an appeal and on 10 June 2010 the Čakovec County Court reversed the first-instance judgment. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law. On 21 September 2011 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris . It held that the applicant’s civil action had included three claims arising from different factual and legal basis and therefore it divided the value of dispute in three. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 12 January 2012. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the refusal of the Supreme Court to examine the merits of his appeal on points of law in the renewed proceedings deprived him of his right of access to court and violated the principle of legal certainty.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Was the decision of the Supreme Court of 21 September 2011 to declare the applicant’s appeal on points of law ( revizija ) inadmissible ratione valoris in breach of his right of access to a court and/or his right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article   6   § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty having regard to that court’s previous decision of 19 April 2006?